Nanny Knows Best

Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Friday, December 04, 2009

Spies Are Us - Nanny's Community Health Services II

This just in from Nanny:

"Dear Mr Frost,

Thank you for your email which you posted on NHS Lincolnshire website.

The purpose of asking questions relating to children's health is so that Lincolnshire Community Health Services can respond to any identified needs raised by a parent or young person themselves.

The questionnaire forms part of a health needs assessment which will direct the School Nursing service to deliver support exactly where it is needed.

By completing the questionnaire, the School Nursing team can assess those families that want support on a 1-1 basis from a School Nurse, those that may require further information via the telephone or leaflets, and a percentage that won’t require any help at all.

The families that are currently completing the questionnaire are being offered help and support if needed which is absolutely crucial to vulnerable groups that are struggling to manage health issues. This group in particular face challenges each day trying to manage health problems and are receptive to help and assistance to care for their child and children that the School Nursing teams can offer. Completion of the questionnaire is entirely optional. All the information is held in health and not shared with other agencies.

I hope this answers your query, if you require further information please do not hesitate to get back in touch with us.

Have these officals been trined in the terms in loco parentis or informed consent?

If the officials are telling the kids what appears in the correspondence you printed, they are messing with the kids' heads and could also possibly be sued or fired for psycholgical abuse or harm. Deceiving adults or children by officals is an abuse of power, and harms the ability of the children to trust. It is pyschologically damaging, especially to the vulnerable.

Who wrote the verbage in the correspondence?

If parents (who are responsible for their children) were the driving force, then when concerned about their children, they would make the move(s), choose of their own volition to call someone (not necessarily an official) about a specific problem, and be in control of which info they gave them and when. They would always be free to discontinue interaction with or say "No" (or "Yes") to any advice or forms of the official or other with whom they discussed the poblem, and without any directly or indirectly punitive consequences or even the hint of them (oral, written or anything else including visits).

By contrast, these forms were reported elsewhere as being sent on the decision of the official, the questions would trick some parents into divulging info which could be used in ways they don't realise. Did the parents consent for a phychological, health and parenting audit of themselves by the officials? According to what is reported elsewhere, if the parents don't fill it in, they may get a visit from some officials, to check on their parenting skills (as estimated by the officials). What would be the scope of the checks and the consequences? Have the parents been informed of the ramifications of filling in the form or not? Which questions are optional, if any? Who will have access to the data (including in future) and what they could do with it? What are the potential consequences for the family, good and bad? Is the data being given or sold to any companies? Do the officials involved at all levels in the council (or whoever suggested or promoted this scheme) have any conflicts of interests in getting the info, including targets for adoptions, selling info, or personal conflicts of interest including keeping their jobs, getting pormotied or getting/keeping otherwise unnecessary or unnecessarily large contracts?

Informed consent is nowhere to be found!

Now Nanny is saying that it is the parents and kids who are making the decisions! It does not appear so to me? Is someone purposely deceiving the parents or their children? That can never be done responsibly.

Maybe I am wrong. I hope so "for the good of the children and parents".

I wanted to add: vulnerable groups including low-income households or any whom officials could harm, especially those who lack genuine access to real justice, including via the veiled threat of taking their kids away unfairly (as sadly happens in the UK) are often compliant and receptive to officials' sugggestions or diktats out of a rational fear of the officials, not because they agree. If any budding officials read this, could you possibly remember to be gentle and fair in relating WITH those who are vulnerable(you are no less or more valuable than they) and to truly give them informed consent. It is easy to accidentally or otherwise abuse power and trample on their rights and free-will or their opinions and decisions about themselves and their family. They may well be doing a "good enough" (part of a continuum) job, including during crises, even if not exactly how you would do things. You have not failed if you don't correct them. In fact, you may have done the right and respectful thing, especially given the current abuses of power going on. They are in authority over their children. Undermine them or their reltionship with their children or their children's repect for them except in rare cases at your peril (see child development books). This also means resources and energy are available to help more serious cases and to prevent tragedies (and avoid scandals).

Personality, family preferences, choices, routines and "traditions" are often not character issues but morally neutral preferences. Would you like someone to take over your home just because you weren't working, middle or upper class enough, or didn't like chicken for example? Also, if you were facing a family's particular set of circumstances, would you cope better? What if someone else took over your life because you weren't running it exactly according to their latest fad, likes or preferred method or training? Further, they ie the parents, are in authority over their children, and the government serves the people, not the other way round. Should you visit their home and they let you in, you are a guest. Should they ask your advice, it is a good thing for them to have the freedom to think it over, discuss it with you, and even to disagree and maybe come up with another solution.

To any officials out there who wish to serve the public, could you possibly use your positions responsibly?

Information, information, information....That's what it is all about...Why?...Because information equals power....These databases are the modern version of the Soviet's little red book...Every dictator knows that control of the media, control of education, control of the banks and control of healthcare are the key requirements of controlling the population....This is the EUSSR's long term goal but, it is being implemented and accepted by the yes sheep even quicker than Nanny could have imagined or hoped for in her wildest dreams.

That email is just a pile of nanny buzz words. It didnt seem to mean anything at all and if it did, the meaning was lost on me.This crap means nothing: identified needs/young person/health needs assessment/vulnerable groups/health issues/face challenges/manage health problems/Clinical Team Leader (Universal Provision) Family & Healthy Lifestyle Services

"These databases are the modern version of the Soviet's little red book...Every dictator knows that control of the media, control of education, control of the banks and control of healthcare are the key requirements of controlling the population....This is the EUSSR's long term goal but,"

I wonder if any of those concerned are Common Purpose "graduates"?

Another point of concern is how should a vulnerable person not wish to co-operate, the local authority may seem fit to remove the "problem" by stopping their housing benefit on some trumped-up pretext, putting them at risk of losing their home.

BuckoI saw some of the questions and some it seemed like they might well be looking for "attachment problems" between parent(s) and their child(ren), which is a psychological issue, and by stealth.Others on diet - in the context of them criticisng parents for feeding kids "too much red meat" again by stealth could be looking for problems, and by stealth.What happens if the parents don't "measure up"? Whyare nurses visitng. If there are attachment issues so subtle, that they are only picked up by a form, or if the parent answers them during a week when something outside of their control is causing the kids to temporarily act in a way that is not typical of their behaviour, the parents and kids could get screwed by an abusive system, and I don't think an ethicial and experience child psychiatrist would be approve of such statistically unreliable or unnecessary or manipulative methods. lack of informed consent is unethical medically, unless someone trule does not have capacity ie not conscious.

Ken, They are lying to you. Contact Point (every child matters).http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/strategy/deliveringservices1/contactpoint/contactpoint/

It says that info is held for different "agencies"

Who will access ContactPoint?

Access to ContactPoint is strictly limited to trained and vetted practitioners who need it to do their job. This includes those working in education, health, social care, youth justice and some voluntary organisations.

Before being granted access, users will have completed mandatory ContactPoint training and other relevant training (such as information sharing). They must have security clearance, including enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosure, and will need a username, PIN, security token and password. Access is audited and monitored.

anonymous @ 8:50 pmWere nurses or teachers or Ofsted or local authorities & others on this list?Also, anything which is on a computer system means that computer professionals & others have access to the system & thus the data. Also potentially hackers, criminals who trade in info, foreign spies & business competitors(foreign or not) as well as criminals including burglars, blackmailers, extortioners, those who smear & frame, indentity crooks, paedophiles, stalkers etc. Crime & corruption will go up, especially against the more vulnerable, & the more vulnerable will have less means to defend themselves. Also children(& their contacts, family or otherwise including note-takers)who are overly monitered will become warped & harmed by such monitering & its consequences. This a form of emotional abuse. Those monitered will focus more on what they say & do(even if innocent of crime), distracting them from living their lives including their jobs for the note takers,& stressing everyone out. Watch depression & stress-related illnesses increase & community & family quality of life & cohesion drop. Also, where any dispute exists involving anyone mentioned in the "child's" file (the child, a family, business or personal dispute including with an official or business competitors or any litigation or insurance or other settlement)there are some who give into the temptation to get or change info per hacking or insiders(paid or otherwise). Divorce & other disputes will increase in ferocity as well as consequences for the "loser". Anyone can be tempted where a lot is at stake. Indiviuals' mistakes or crimes & punishents will have consequences which increase beyond healthy or obvious or intended consequences, & will last beyond healthy time frames. Injustices will also increase as the stakes get higher. Some are sadly in the business of such crimes. No system is hack-proof. How good are the audit-trails (they won't be perfect)? What about when info is transferred & other data-loss issues? Mistakes & corrupted data will also occur. Mistakes & corrupted data will occur.Some info should never be kept for the above & other reasons. People will increasingly rationally not share innocent or sensitive or every-day info with health, school or other officials once they realise the potential harm, so schools & others won't function as well in serving the public. They will not get the info they need to do their job because of such systems which ask too much & hold info which never should be kept, let alone for a long time. Some info is best kept on paper(if at all) because criminals(white collar or not) then have to phsyically break into each location where it is kept & risk getting caught. Too much info about someone, their life & family & relationships shouldn't be kept, let alone in one place, or accessible by too many (in or outside their community or country). It is toxic to those tagged & to society, including by demoting healthy boundaries & other healthy behaviour in children, families & community. It discourarages healthy attitudes towards the place of government, power & info in society. Those with control of or access to data (legal or otherwise) have infuence & power over those about whom data is held. Who will have access to what info (to read, or change, hide or delete it)? Also, once info is input, other fields like "risk factor" (crime or vulnerability) may be created, & may be inaccurate,inappropriate or self-fulfilling. Tag & label children or adults for life (especially in detail) except in rare cases & those who read the info will view the person through the lens of previous writers, as well as draw seomtimes wrong conclusions or inferences from such data, thus they will become inobjective in relating to or making decisions about the child.

anonymous @ 8:50 pm - end of British rantBiases will increase as people are over-influenced by others' views & wrong decisions & unfair treatment will increase. There will be many cases of such systems creating increased vulnerability, including among some who were not vulnerable & those labelled or mislabelled may become what the system says or somthing else including broken, vulnerable or not free to become who they chose to be/would have been or get help where needed, becaue the system created a life whereby they were driven towards or locked into brokenness or crime or warped personality. Only those blessed with certain pesonalities & circumstances will be ok. Others including those not into crimes will be warped or burnt out & society will suffer. Certain professions which depend on traits (non-criminal) which such oppressive and invasive systems harm will suffer including those like science & inventors & entrepreneurs which depend on people being inquisitive & sometimes indiviualistic regardless of the "group" norms. Those who are sensitive & compassionate will suffer - some potential charity workers, doctors, teachers, artistic types etc will be held back. People will focus on self more & justice & mercy will go down. Would-be policemen, lawyers or judges or politicians will not have as many healthy role models for these traits - & it will become harder in all prfessions to behave reasonably and ethically. A mass of data also means some won't read all the notes & data & so real & core issues will get missed in the unnecessary haystack. Children will be harmed as well as families (including singles) & society.Power will amass to those with access to systems at the expense of those described (accurately or not) by the system. Record alleged imperfections, misdeeds as well as every action not in line with officals', note-takers' & note-viewer'(including unauthorised) views, will have disproportionate results for those mentioned in the notes on the child.Mercy, 2nd chances, discretion, minding our own business, self-determination will decrease. Gossip, noseyness, slander, over-meddling & bad decisions will increase, also inequality because its hard enough for those with power & money to hire lawyers or get FOIA requests to constantly righfully protect their & their families' reputations, security & dignity where they can with such systems. The rest of society has even less chance - time, money, energy, access to justice. The burden of red-tape & insurance will go up. Doctors, teachers & all who add notes , all who adminstrate such abusive & naive sytems & take decisions based on the data will face increased litigation (deserved or not including frivilous) & red tape, distracting them from their jobs at the harm of those they serve & increasing litigation, insurance, admin costs for all. If anyone thinks I am naive or exaggerating, they either have never seen anyone harmed by abuse of power or invasion of privacy or think that they are untouchable.There's a reason why notions such as privacy, dignity, discretion, locks, clothing,walls for homes & businesses & God-given gift of silent thoughts exist. Computer systems & laws should reflect & serve people and the reality of human life, not drive or distort human behaviour & society. The above & more applies to other systems including computerised health records. Please could those trained in or affected speak up where they don't - especially those who understand how this effects the vulnerable & makes us all more vulnerable), community & the country before more people, communities & the country are harmed & destroyed by such sytems & solutions to real & imagined problems.

Professional Networks

Google+ Badge

Latest Comments

Recent Tweets

Subscribe To Nanny Knows Best

"In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.Then they came for the Jews,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.Then they came for the trade unionists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.The they came for the Catholics,and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me,and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemoeller

"The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible

reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed."

Adolf Hitler

Visit "Nanny's Store" and buy from a stunning range of T-shirts, mugs, cards and other items; all showing the distinctive